Photo from Dewey21C
Last month, Brian Mitchell, the Director of the Edvance Foundation, penned a blog titled, At-Risk Students and the College Scorecard. Here is a nugget from that editorial piece:
Let's agree that some schools do a terrible job and should close or merge. The danger is, however, that the less resourced ones who do heroic work with diverse populations of all types might be pushed into the endangered category.In my estimation, this began with all of the for-profit institutions that shot up, (with a lot of them headquartered in Arizona). They took advantage of student-based funding, advertised college like it was cheap auto insurance, and then walked away from their own student bodies. Students were left with large debts and useless degrees. These institutions should close. Unfortunately, we are once-again seeing the lowest common denominator determining the institutional lives of an entire education sector. Again. This is the next step in what will become the No Child Left Behind of higher education. Higher education knows this outcome very well.
Colleges already face a long list of accountability measures. Ask any accreditation officer at any institution. U.S. News & World Report practically kept itself financially afloat through their "rankings" publications. However, they did a very nice job of pretty much giving everybody some reason to celebrate (multiple lists by location, price, area of study, etc.). Money Magazine's recent listing was ridiculous. I've seen some awful institutions listed among their "best."
Each course of study--each academic department--has another set of criteria to meet through their associations. Music departments scurry to meet music standards; nursing departments struggle mightily to meet program certification standards. Even innovative programs need to become nationally certified. The list is enormous for some institutions.
Add to this the demands that come from states. State colleges and universities become fodder for political battles, as well as slaves to multiple masters. Even at the community college level, things have gotten more onerous. Texas has implemented a new funding mechanism for community colleges called "Success Points." In short, 10% of a community college's funding depends on whether the students achieve certain targets, and that percentage is expected to grow in coming years.
Thus begins the vicious cycle. Problematic community colleges will lose funds--ergo, they will get worse. I'm fortunate to work at one of the most successful community colleges in the nation. However, pay-for-performance is problematic for individual public school teachers.
Photo from Northwest Evaluation Association
When I was working in K-12 public education policy, I used to tell people that lawmakers, government officials, news agencies, and the general public see schools in one of two terms--kids or money. The same can be said for higher education. If the entire goal is to make, say, a Methodist liberal arts college more fiscally efficient, then this reaches beyond the scope of the public education debate. It's yet another way that government is working to control the efforts of higher education--all of it--in terms of money. It ignores the young (and not-so-young) adults that comprise the hearts and souls of these institutions.
While I am a BIG fan of Systems Thinking, the individual development of the American higher education system is its greatest strength. This is a monstrous effort to turn what we have into something it was never meant to be in the first place. We have throngs of foreign students looking for opportunities to study in the United States. That should be a sign of how powerful our current "system" is.
As Dr. Mitchell put it, "What a tragedy if federal policy meant to inform consumers effectively forced changes in admission practices that squeezed out local innovation."
Unfortunately, I can already see that happening. Again.
